Why step in? Shifting justifications for bystander behaviors through interventions with youth in the Middle East.

Research shows positive bystander intervention effectively mitigates bullying experiences. Yet, more evidence regarding bystander responses to bias-based social exclusion (BSE) is needed in intergroup contexts, especially in the majority world and in areas of intractable conflict. This study assessed the effectiveness of skills and skills + contact-based interventions for BSE among 148 Palestinian Citizens of Israel (Mage = 10.55) and 154 Jewish-Israeli (Mage = 10.54) early adolescents (Girls = 52.32%) in Tel Aviv-Yafo. Bystander responses were assessed by participants' reactions to hypothetical BSE scenarios over three time points. Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed both interventions significantly increased positive and decreased negative bystander responses, with changes maintained at the follow-up. The opposite result pattern emerged for the control group. Findings suggest that both interventions can effectively encourage youth to publicly challenge BSE, even amidst intractable conflict.

Black-White Racial Context and U.S. American Youths' Moral Judgments of and Responses to Social Exclusion Bullying.

Bullied adolescents experience myriad poor outcomes, yet certain responses can have significant mitigatory effects. However, research has yet to examine how the racial context of these interactions affects adolescents' evaluations of and beliefs about responding to social-exclusionary bullying (SEB). The sample comprised 219 ninth-grade Black (N = 84; females = 46) and White (N = 135; females = 81) students (Mage = 14.84, SD = 0.68; Nfemales= 92) recruited from 5 schools in a large, racially diverse, middle-class Mid-Atlantic metropolitan area of the United States. Participants judged the wrongfulness of 4 scenarios of same- and cross-race SEB and selected how the victims should respond to the victimization. Responses were coded as aggressive, assertive, adult assistance-seeking, or avoidant. Gender, scenario, and response strategy main and interaction effects emerged. The Black-excluder and White-victim scenario was rated least wrong. Assertive responses were selected more often in scenarios with White-excluders; avoidant responses were selected more often in scenarios with Black-excluders. Results suggest that racial context relates significantly to adolescents' evaluations of and responses to SEB scenarios.

Attributions of intentions and fairness judgments regarding interracial peer encounters.

To investigate how adolescents interpret ambiguous actions in hypothetical interracial peer encounters, we conducted a study in which 8th- and 11th-grade students (N = 837) evaluated 4 interracial peer encounters in which the intentions of the protagonist were ambiguous. The sample was evenly divided by gender and included both African American and European American adolescents. European American students, male adolescents, and 8th graders were more likely to attribute negative intentions to the protagonist in interracial exchanges than were African American students, female adolescents, and 11th graders. Although all participants viewed peer and teacher accusations of wrongdoing in ambiguous situations as unfair, ethnic minority students as well as female adolescents rated accusations of wrongdoing as more unfair than did ethnic majority or male adolescents. Eleventh graders were more likely to view accusations of wrongdoing for protagonists with a prior history of transgression as fair than were 8th graders. The findings are discussed in light of efforts to reduce prejudice and to facilitate positive intergroup peer interactions.

Evaluations of Interracial Peer Encounters by Majority and Minority U.S. Children and Adolescents.

U.S. majority (European-American) and minority (African-American, Latin-American, Asian-American) students were interviewed regarding race-based and non-race based reasons for exclusion in interracial peer dyads (N = 685), evenly divided by gender at 4th, 7th, and 10th grades attending 20 public schools. All students judged race-based exclusion as the most wrong followed by non-raced based reasons such as lack of shared interests, parental discomfort, and peer pressure. Minority students were more likely to judge non-race based exclusion as wrong than were majority students, and were more likely to expect that racial exclusion occurs, indicating that ethnic background and social experience are significantly related to interpretations of interracial peer dyadic reasons for exclusion.